Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 481 | control, N = 241 | treatment, N = 241 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 48 | 51.05 ± 12.71 (25 - 74) | 50.67 ± 13.25 (25 - 74) | 51.44 ± 12.43 (32 - 72) | 0.837 |
gender | 48 | 0.365 | |||
f | 31 (65%) | 14 (58%) | 17 (71%) | ||
m | 17 (35%) | 10 (42%) | 7 (29%) | ||
occupation | 48 | 0.971 | |||
day_training | 1 (2.1%) | 1 (4.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 5 (10%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
homemaker | 4 (8.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
other | 2 (4.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
part_time | 9 (19%) | 5 (21%) | 4 (17%) | ||
retired | 13 (27%) | 6 (25%) | 7 (29%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | ||
unemploy | 10 (21%) | 5 (21%) | 5 (21%) | ||
marital | 48 | 0.891 | |||
divore | 5 (10%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
married | 10 (21%) | 4 (17%) | 6 (25%) | ||
none | 27 (56%) | 14 (58%) | 13 (54%) | ||
seperation | 3 (6.2%) | 2 (8.3%) | 1 (4.2%) | ||
widow | 3 (6.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
edu | 48 | 0.846 | |||
bachelor | 14 (29%) | 6 (25%) | 8 (33%) | ||
diploma | 7 (15%) | 5 (21%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
hd_ad | 2 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | ||
postgraduate | 4 (8.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
primary | 4 (8.3%) | 1 (4.2%) | 3 (12%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 4 (8.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 12 (25%) | 7 (29%) | 5 (21%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (2.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.2%) | ||
fam_income | 48 | 0.724 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (6.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
12001_14000 | 2 (4.2%) | 2 (8.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (10%) | 2 (8.3%) | 3 (12%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) | ||
18001_20000 | 2 (4.2%) | 2 (8.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (19%) | 6 (25%) | 3 (12%) | ||
2001_4000 | 5 (10%) | 2 (8.3%) | 3 (12%) | ||
4001_6000 | 7 (15%) | 3 (12%) | 4 (17%) | ||
6001_8000 | 5 (10%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (8.3%) | ||
8001_10000 | 4 (8.3%) | 1 (4.2%) | 3 (12%) | ||
below_2000 | 4 (8.3%) | 1 (4.2%) | 3 (12%) | ||
medication | 48 | 40 (83%) | 20 (83%) | 20 (83%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 48 | 15.71 ± 12.41 (0 - 56) | 17.12 ± 14.01 (1 - 56) | 14.29 ± 10.70 (0 - 35) | 0.437 |
onset_age | 48 | 35.35 ± 12.60 (15 - 62) | 33.55 ± 11.34 (16 - 55) | 37.14 ± 13.76 (15 - 62) | 0.329 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 481 | control, N = 241 | treatment, N = 241 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 48 | 3.33 ± 1.28 (1 - 5) | 3.25 ± 1.36 (1 - 5) | 3.42 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 0.656 |
recovery_stage_b | 48 | 18.25 ± 2.69 (9 - 23) | 18.33 ± 2.90 (9 - 23) | 18.17 ± 2.53 (14 - 23) | 0.833 |
ras_confidence | 48 | 30.69 ± 4.60 (19 - 40) | 30.25 ± 4.42 (19 - 40) | 31.12 ± 4.84 (22 - 39) | 0.516 |
ras_willingness | 48 | 12.29 ± 1.97 (7 - 15) | 12.33 ± 1.74 (9 - 15) | 12.25 ± 2.21 (7 - 15) | 0.885 |
ras_goal | 48 | 17.67 ± 2.92 (12 - 24) | 17.58 ± 2.90 (12 - 23) | 17.75 ± 3.00 (12 - 24) | 0.846 |
ras_reliance | 48 | 13.48 ± 3.01 (8 - 20) | 13.38 ± 2.72 (8 - 18) | 13.58 ± 3.34 (8 - 20) | 0.813 |
ras_domination | 48 | 10.17 ± 2.35 (3 - 15) | 10.88 ± 1.73 (8 - 15) | 9.46 ± 2.69 (3 - 14) | 0.035 |
symptom | 48 | 29.58 ± 9.87 (14 - 56) | 28.50 ± 8.29 (14 - 45) | 30.67 ± 11.30 (15 - 56) | 0.453 |
slof_work | 48 | 22.69 ± 4.87 (10 - 30) | 23.12 ± 4.61 (15 - 30) | 22.25 ± 5.19 (10 - 30) | 0.540 |
slof_relationship | 48 | 25.94 ± 5.86 (11 - 35) | 26.25 ± 6.20 (13 - 35) | 25.62 ± 5.62 (11 - 35) | 0.716 |
satisfaction | 48 | 20.77 ± 6.72 (5 - 30) | 19.54 ± 6.45 (5 - 29) | 22.00 ± 6.90 (5 - 30) | 0.209 |
mhc_emotional | 48 | 11.44 ± 3.54 (4 - 18) | 11.12 ± 3.05 (6 - 17) | 11.75 ± 4.00 (4 - 18) | 0.546 |
mhc_social | 48 | 14.83 ± 5.02 (6 - 26) | 15.21 ± 5.12 (7 - 26) | 14.46 ± 5.00 (6 - 23) | 0.610 |
mhc_psychological | 48 | 22.15 ± 6.11 (6 - 36) | 21.67 ± 6.11 (10 - 33) | 22.62 ± 6.21 (6 - 36) | 0.592 |
resilisnce | 48 | 16.83 ± 4.74 (6 - 25) | 16.58 ± 4.74 (6 - 24) | 17.08 ± 4.82 (7 - 25) | 0.719 |
social_provision | 48 | 13.67 ± 3.17 (5 - 20) | 13.58 ± 2.80 (8 - 20) | 13.75 ± 3.57 (5 - 19) | 0.858 |
els_value_living | 48 | 17.04 ± 2.98 (5 - 23) | 16.67 ± 2.30 (12 - 20) | 17.42 ± 3.55 (5 - 23) | 0.389 |
els_life_fulfill | 48 | 13.04 ± 3.29 (4 - 18) | 12.21 ± 3.28 (5 - 17) | 13.88 ± 3.14 (4 - 18) | 0.079 |
els | 48 | 30.08 ± 5.66 (9 - 40) | 28.88 ± 4.79 (20 - 36) | 31.29 ± 6.29 (9 - 40) | 0.141 |
social_connect | 48 | 27.06 ± 9.79 (8 - 48) | 26.96 ± 8.78 (8 - 45) | 27.17 ± 10.90 (8 - 48) | 0.942 |
shs_agency | 48 | 14.04 ± 4.82 (3 - 20) | 13.46 ± 4.55 (3 - 20) | 14.62 ± 5.11 (3 - 20) | 0.408 |
shs_pathway | 48 | 16.50 ± 3.88 (4 - 22) | 15.96 ± 3.72 (8 - 22) | 17.04 ± 4.03 (4 - 22) | 0.338 |
shs | 48 | 30.54 ± 8.10 (7 - 42) | 29.42 ± 7.88 (14 - 41) | 31.67 ± 8.33 (7 - 42) | 0.341 |
esteem | 48 | 12.50 ± 1.27 (10 - 15) | 12.58 ± 1.18 (10 - 14) | 12.42 ± 1.38 (10 - 15) | 0.655 |
mlq_search | 48 | 15.08 ± 3.30 (3 - 21) | 15.00 ± 3.26 (6 - 21) | 15.17 ± 3.41 (3 - 20) | 0.863 |
mlq_presence | 48 | 13.62 ± 3.90 (3 - 21) | 13.92 ± 2.98 (6 - 19) | 13.33 ± 4.69 (3 - 21) | 0.609 |
mlq | 48 | 28.71 ± 6.57 (6 - 41) | 28.92 ± 6.04 (12 - 40) | 28.50 ± 7.17 (6 - 41) | 0.829 |
empower | 48 | 19.88 ± 4.34 (6 - 28) | 19.75 ± 3.95 (11 - 24) | 20.00 ± 4.79 (6 - 28) | 0.844 |
ismi_resistance | 48 | 14.83 ± 2.76 (5 - 20) | 14.92 ± 2.30 (12 - 19) | 14.75 ± 3.21 (5 - 20) | 0.837 |
ismi_discrimation | 48 | 11.17 ± 3.13 (5 - 19) | 11.96 ± 2.84 (5 - 17) | 10.38 ± 3.27 (5 - 19) | 0.080 |
sss_affective | 48 | 9.62 ± 4.10 (3 - 18) | 10.04 ± 3.30 (3 - 15) | 9.21 ± 4.80 (3 - 18) | 0.487 |
sss_behavior | 48 | 9.44 ± 4.24 (3 - 18) | 9.96 ± 4.05 (3 - 18) | 8.92 ± 4.45 (3 - 18) | 0.401 |
sss_cognitive | 48 | 7.98 ± 3.99 (3 - 18) | 7.79 ± 3.74 (3 - 15) | 8.17 ± 4.30 (3 - 18) | 0.749 |
sss | 48 | 27.04 ± 11.38 (9 - 54) | 27.79 ± 9.57 (9 - 44) | 26.29 ± 13.11 (9 - 54) | 0.653 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.25 | 0.245 | 2.77, 3.73 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.167 | 0.347 | -0.513, 0.846 | 0.633 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.789 | 0.403 | 0.000, 1.58 | 0.063 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.389 | 0.557 | -1.48, 0.704 | 0.493 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.053 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.3 | 0.563 | 17.2, 19.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.167 | 0.796 | -1.73, 1.39 | 0.835 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.530 | 0.755 | -0.951, 2.01 | 0.489 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.025 | 1.044 | -2.07, 2.02 | 0.981 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 30.3 | 1.016 | 28.3, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.875 | 1.436 | -1.94, 3.69 | 0.545 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.77 | 1.287 | -0.749, 4.30 | 0.181 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.91 | 1.778 | -5.40, 1.57 | 0.293 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.398 | 11.6, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.083 | 0.563 | -1.19, 1.02 | 0.883 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.600 | 0.493 | -1.57, 0.367 | 0.237 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.908 | 0.681 | -0.428, 2.24 | 0.196 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.6 | 0.637 | 16.3, 18.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.167 | 0.900 | -1.60, 1.93 | 0.854 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.415 | 0.825 | -2.03, 1.20 | 0.619 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.810 | 1.139 | -1.42, 3.04 | 0.484 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.601 | 12.2, 14.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.208 | 0.849 | -1.46, 1.87 | 0.807 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.058 | 0.532 | -1.10, 0.985 | 0.914 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.51 | 0.734 | 0.068, 2.95 | 0.054 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.9 | 0.459 | 9.97, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.42 | 0.650 | -2.69, -0.143 | 0.033 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.506 | 0.758 | -1.99, 0.980 | 0.509 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.75 | 1.049 | -0.304, 3.81 | 0.105 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.074 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 2.047 | 24.5, 32.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.17 | 2.895 | -3.51, 7.84 | 0.458 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.18 | 1.556 | -4.23, 1.87 | 0.458 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.58 | 2.146 | -5.79, 2.62 | 0.471 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 23.1 | 1.001 | 21.2, 25.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.875 | 1.416 | -3.65, 1.90 | 0.539 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.481 | 0.965 | -2.37, 1.41 | 0.624 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.270 | 1.331 | -2.88, 2.34 | 0.842 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 26.3 | 1.208 | 23.9, 28.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.625 | 1.709 | -3.97, 2.72 | 0.716 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.31 | 1.142 | -3.55, 0.930 | 0.265 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.29 | 1.576 | -1.80, 4.38 | 0.422 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.5 | 1.406 | 16.8, 22.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.46 | 1.989 | -1.44, 6.36 | 0.222 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 3.36 | 1.841 | -0.252, 6.96 | 0.081 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.81 | 2.542 | -7.80, 2.17 | 0.280 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.1 | 0.739 | 9.68, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.625 | 1.045 | -1.42, 2.67 | 0.552 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.16 | 0.810 | -0.426, 2.75 | 0.166 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.65 | 1.118 | -3.85, 0.538 | 0.154 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 1.110 | 13.0, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.750 | 1.569 | -3.83, 2.33 | 0.635 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.67 | 1.351 | -0.977, 4.32 | 0.228 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.00 | 1.865 | -4.66, 2.65 | 0.595 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.7 | 1.337 | 19.0, 24.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.958 | 1.891 | -2.75, 4.66 | 0.614 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.99 | 1.586 | -1.12, 5.10 | 0.222 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.97 | 2.190 | -7.26, 1.33 | 0.188 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.931 | 14.8, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.500 | 1.317 | -2.08, 3.08 | 0.706 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.747 | 1.122 | -1.45, 2.95 | 0.513 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.458 | 1.549 | -2.58, 3.49 | 0.771 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.6 | 0.632 | 12.3, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.167 | 0.894 | -1.59, 1.92 | 0.853 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.479 | 0.704 | -1.86, 0.901 | 0.504 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.57 | 0.971 | -0.338, 3.47 | 0.122 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.603 | 15.5, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.750 | 0.853 | -0.923, 2.42 | 0.383 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.10 | 0.697 | -0.264, 2.47 | 0.127 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.406 | 0.962 | -2.29, 1.48 | 0.677 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.645 | 10.9, 13.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.67 | 0.912 | -0.120, 3.45 | 0.073 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.82 | 0.740 | 0.371, 3.27 | 0.022 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.13 | 1.021 | -3.13, 0.868 | 0.279 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.079 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 1.138 | 26.6, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.42 | 1.609 | -0.736, 5.57 | 0.139 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.88 | 1.239 | 0.451, 5.31 | 0.029 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.51 | 1.710 | -4.86, 1.85 | 0.388 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.063 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 1.949 | 23.1, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.208 | 2.757 | -5.19, 5.61 | 0.940 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.22 | 1.507 | -1.73, 4.17 | 0.429 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.585 | 2.079 | -3.49, 4.66 | 0.782 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.5 | 0.970 | 11.6, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.17 | 1.372 | -1.52, 3.86 | 0.399 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.54 | 0.982 | -0.386, 3.46 | 0.133 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.576 | 1.356 | -2.08, 3.23 | 0.675 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.050 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.758 | 14.5, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.08 | 1.072 | -1.02, 3.18 | 0.317 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.07 | 0.755 | -0.407, 2.55 | 0.171 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.122 | 1.041 | -2.16, 1.92 | 0.908 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 1.606 | 26.3, 32.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.25 | 2.272 | -2.20, 6.70 | 0.327 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.51 | 1.484 | -0.398, 5.42 | 0.106 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.529 | 2.048 | -3.48, 4.54 | 0.799 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.048 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.251 | 12.1, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.167 | 0.355 | -0.862, 0.528 | 0.640 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.837 | 0.462 | -0.069, 1.74 | 0.087 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.303 | 0.641 | -1.56, 0.953 | 0.642 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.070 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.672 | 13.7, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.167 | 0.950 | -1.70, 2.03 | 0.861 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.03 | 1.048 | -1.02, 3.09 | 0.332 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.03 | 1.449 | -3.86, 1.81 | 0.485 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.774 | 12.4, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.583 | 1.095 | -2.73, 1.56 | 0.596 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.31 | 1.013 | -0.674, 3.30 | 0.208 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.314 | 1.400 | -3.06, 2.43 | 0.825 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 1.333 | 26.3, 31.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.417 | 1.885 | -4.11, 3.28 | 0.826 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.31 | 1.860 | -1.34, 5.95 | 0.226 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.33 | 2.570 | -6.36, 3.71 | 0.610 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.8 | 0.865 | 18.1, 21.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.250 | 1.223 | -2.15, 2.65 | 0.839 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.701 | 0.618 | -0.511, 1.91 | 0.271 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.270 | 0.853 | -1.94, 1.40 | 0.755 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.533 | 13.9, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.167 | 0.754 | -1.64, 1.31 | 0.826 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.772 | 0.811 | -0.819, 2.36 | 0.350 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.438 | 1.122 | -2.64, 1.76 | 0.699 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.634 | 10.7, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.58 | 0.897 | -3.34, 0.175 | 0.083 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.59 | 0.755 | -3.08, -0.114 | 0.045 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.99 | 1.043 | -0.054, 4.03 | 0.068 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.053 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.827 | 8.42, 11.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.833 | 1.169 | -3.13, 1.46 | 0.480 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.570 | 0.570 | -1.69, 0.548 | 0.331 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.277 | 0.786 | -1.26, 1.82 | 0.729 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.96 | 0.843 | 8.31, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.04 | 1.192 | -3.38, 1.29 | 0.386 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.51 | 0.686 | -2.85, -0.163 | 0.041 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.47 | 0.946 | -0.388, 3.32 | 0.138 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 7.79 | 0.840 | 6.15, 9.44 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.375 | 1.187 | -1.95, 2.70 | 0.753 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.807 | 0.747 | -0.657, 2.27 | 0.293 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.15 | 1.030 | -3.17, 0.871 | 0.279 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 2.321 | 23.2, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.50 | 3.282 | -7.93, 4.93 | 0.650 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.19 | 1.521 | -4.18, 1.79 | 0.442 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.563 | 2.097 | -3.55, 4.67 | 0.791 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.25 (95% CI [2.77, 3.73], t(61) = 13.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.85], t(61) = 0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-3.11e-04, 1.58], t(61) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.60e-04, 1.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.70], t(61) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.07e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.33 (95% CI [17.23, 19.44], t(61) = 32.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.39], t(61) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.95, 2.01], t(61) = 0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.73])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-2.07, 2.02], t(61) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -9.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.25 (95% CI [28.26, 32.24], t(61) = 29.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.94, 3.69], t(61) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.77, 95% CI [-0.75, 4.30], t(61) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.85])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.91, 95% CI [-5.40, 1.57], t(61) = -1.08, p = 0.282; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.33 (95% CI [11.55, 13.11], t(61) = 30.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.02], t(61) = -0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.37], t(61) = -1.22, p = 0.224; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.43, 2.24], t(61) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.58 (95% CI [16.34, 18.83], t(61) = 27.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.60, 1.93], t(61) = 0.19, p = 0.853; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.03, 1.20], t(61) = -0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.42, 3.04], t(61) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.96])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.20, 14.55], t(61) = 22.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.87], t(61) = 0.25, p = 0.806; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.98], t(61) = -0.11, p = 0.913; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.51, 95% CI [0.07, 2.95], t(61) = 2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.02, 0.97])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.87 (95% CI [9.97, 11.78], t(61) = 23.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.69, -0.14], t(61) = -2.18, p = 0.029; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.17, -0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.98], t(61) = -0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.75, 95% CI [-0.30, 3.81], t(61) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.50 (95% CI [24.49, 32.51], t(61) = 13.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.17, 95% CI [-3.51, 7.84], t(61) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-4.23, 1.87], t(61) = -0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.58, 95% CI [-5.79, 2.62], t(61) = -0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.12 (95% CI [21.16, 25.09], t(61) = 23.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-3.65, 1.90], t(61) = -0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.37, 1.41], t(61) = -0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.34], t(61) = -0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.25 (95% CI [23.88, 28.62], t(61) = 21.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-3.97, 2.72], t(61) = -0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.55, 0.93], t(61) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-1.80, 4.38], t(61) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.54 (95% CI [16.79, 22.30], t(61) = 13.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.46, 95% CI [-1.44, 6.36], t(61) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.36, 95% CI [-0.25, 6.96], t(61) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.99])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.81, 95% CI [-7.80, 2.17], t(61) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.13 (95% CI [9.68, 12.57], t(61) = 15.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.67], t(61) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-0.43, 2.75], t(61) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.76])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.85, 0.54], t(61) = -1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.21 (95% CI [13.03, 17.38], t(61) = 13.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-3.83, 2.33], t(61) = -0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.98, 4.32], t(61) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.78])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-4.66, 2.65], t(61) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.67 (95% CI [19.05, 24.29], t(61) = 16.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-2.75, 4.66], t(61) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.99, 95% CI [-1.12, 5.10], t(61) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.77])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.97, 95% CI [-7.26, 1.33], t(61) = -1.35, p = 0.175; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.58 (95% CI [14.76, 18.41], t(61) = 17.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-2.08, 3.08], t(61) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.45, 2.95], t(61) = 0.67, p = 0.505; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.67])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-2.58, 3.49], t(61) = 0.30, p = 0.768; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.58 (95% CI [12.34, 14.82], t(61) = 21.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.59, 1.92], t(61) = 0.19, p = 0.852; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.86, 0.90], t(61) = -0.68, p = 0.497; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.47], t(61) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.67 (95% CI [15.48, 17.85], t(61) = 27.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.92, 2.42], t(61) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 2.47], t(61) = 1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.80])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.29, 1.48], t(61) = -0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.21 (95% CI [10.95, 13.47], t(61) = 18.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.12, 3.45], t(61) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.82, 95% CI [0.37, 3.27], t(61) = 2.46, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.11, 0.99])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-3.13, 0.87], t(61) = -1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.88 (95% CI [26.65, 31.10], t(61) = 25.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.42, 95% CI [-0.74, 5.57], t(61) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.94])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.88, 95% CI [0.45, 5.31], t(61) = 2.32, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.08, 0.90])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-4.86, 1.85], t(61) = -0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.96 (95% CI [23.14, 30.78], t(61) = 13.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-5.19, 5.61], t(61) = 0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-1.73, 4.17], t(61) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-3.49, 4.66], t(61) = 0.28, p = 0.779; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.46 (95% CI [11.56, 15.36], t(61) = 13.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.52, 3.86], t(61) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-0.39, 3.46], t(61) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.71])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-2.08, 3.23], t(61) = 0.43, p = 0.671; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.47, 17.44], t(61) = 21.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.02, 3.18], t(61) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.84])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.55], t(61) = 1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.68])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-2.16, 1.92], t(61) = -0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.42 (95% CI [26.27, 32.57], t(61) = 18.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.25, 95% CI [-2.20, 6.70], t(61) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.83])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.51, 95% CI [-0.40, 5.42], t(61) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.67])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-3.48, 4.54], t(61) = 0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.18) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [12.09, 13.07], t(61) = 50.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.53], t(61) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.74], t(61) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.95], t(61) = -0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.76])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.00 (95% CI [13.68, 16.32], t(61) = 22.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.03], t(61) = 0.18, p = 0.861; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-1.02, 3.09], t(61) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.95])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.86, 1.81], t(61) = -0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.92 (95% CI [12.40, 15.43], t(61) = 17.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-2.73, 1.56], t(61) = -0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.31, 95% CI [-0.67, 3.30], t(61) = 1.29, p = 0.195; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.86])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-3.06, 2.43], t(61) = -0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.92 (95% CI [26.30, 31.53], t(61) = 21.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-4.11, 3.28], t(61) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.31, 95% CI [-1.34, 5.95], t(61) = 1.24, p = 0.215; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.91])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.33, 95% CI [-6.36, 3.71], t(61) = -0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.75 (95% CI [18.06, 21.44], t(61) = 22.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.65], t(61) = 0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.91], t(61) = 1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.94, 1.40], t(61) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.92 (95% CI [13.87, 15.96], t(61) = 27.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.31], t(61) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.36], t(61) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.91])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.64, 1.76], t(61) = -0.39, p = 0.696; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.96 (95% CI [10.71, 13.20], t(61) = 18.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.58, 95% CI [-3.34, 0.18], t(61) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.08, -0.11], t(61) = -2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.99, 95% CI [-0.05, 4.03], t(61) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.04 (95% CI [8.42, 11.66], t(61) = 12.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-3.13, 1.46], t(61) = -0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.55], t(61) = -1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.82], t(61) = 0.35, p = 0.725; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.96 (95% CI [8.31, 11.61], t(61) = 11.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.29], t(61) = -0.87, p = 0.382; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-2.85, -0.16], t(61) = -2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.68, -0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.39, 3.32], t(61) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.79 (95% CI [6.15, 9.44], t(61) = 9.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.95, 2.70], t(61) = 0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.27], t(61) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.56])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.15, 95% CI [-3.17, 0.87], t(61) = -1.11, p = 0.265; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.79 (95% CI [23.24, 32.34], t(61) = 11.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-7.93, 4.93], t(61) = -0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-4.18, 1.79], t(61) = -0.79, p = 0.432; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-3.55, 4.67], t(61) = 0.27, p = 0.788; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 218.656 | 225.270 | -106.328 | 212.656 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 219.761 | 232.989 | -103.880 | 207.761 | 4.895 | 3 | 0.180 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 319.879 | 326.493 | -156.940 | 313.879 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 324.791 | 338.019 | -156.395 | 312.791 | 1.089 | 3 | 0.780 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 398.126 | 404.740 | -196.063 | 392.126 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 401.997 | 415.225 | -194.999 | 389.997 | 2.129 | 3 | 0.546 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 271.818 | 278.433 | -132.909 | 265.818 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 275.778 | 289.006 | -131.889 | 263.778 | 2.040 | 3 | 0.564 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 334.845 | 341.459 | -164.422 | 328.845 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 340.140 | 353.368 | -164.070 | 328.140 | 0.705 | 3 | 0.872 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 320.954 | 327.568 | -157.477 | 314.954 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 318.784 | 332.012 | -153.392 | 306.784 | 8.170 | 3 | 0.043 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 304.229 | 310.843 | -149.114 | 298.229 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 304.043 | 317.271 | -146.022 | 292.043 | 6.186 | 3 | 0.103 |
symptom | null | 3 | 475.836 | 482.450 | -234.918 | 469.836 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 477.418 | 490.646 | -232.709 | 465.418 | 4.418 | 3 | 0.220 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 385.770 | 392.384 | -189.885 | 379.770 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 390.303 | 403.531 | -189.151 | 378.303 | 1.467 | 3 | 0.690 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 410.234 | 416.848 | -202.117 | 404.234 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 414.813 | 428.041 | -201.407 | 402.813 | 1.420 | 3 | 0.701 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 445.219 | 451.833 | -219.609 | 439.219 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 446.695 | 459.924 | -217.348 | 434.695 | 4.523 | 3 | 0.210 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 350.888 | 357.502 | -172.444 | 344.888 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 354.256 | 367.484 | -171.128 | 342.256 | 2.632 | 3 | 0.452 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 408.749 | 415.363 | -201.375 | 402.749 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 412.454 | 425.682 | -200.227 | 400.454 | 2.295 | 3 | 0.513 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 432.665 | 439.280 | -213.333 | 426.665 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 436.531 | 449.759 | -212.266 | 424.531 | 2.134 | 3 | 0.545 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 384.675 | 391.289 | -189.337 | 378.675 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 388.615 | 401.843 | -188.308 | 376.615 | 2.060 | 3 | 0.560 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 331.472 | 338.086 | -162.736 | 325.472 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 333.952 | 347.180 | -160.976 | 321.952 | 3.520 | 3 | 0.318 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 327.378 | 333.992 | -160.689 | 321.378 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 328.970 | 342.198 | -158.485 | 316.970 | 4.408 | 3 | 0.221 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 341.091 | 347.705 | -167.545 | 335.091 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 337.579 | 350.807 | -162.790 | 325.579 | 9.511 | 3 | 0.023 |
els | null | 3 | 414.378 | 420.992 | -204.189 | 408.378 | |||
els | random | 6 | 411.860 | 425.088 | -199.930 | 399.860 | 8.518 | 3 | 0.036 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 467.850 | 474.464 | -230.925 | 461.850 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 471.513 | 484.742 | -229.757 | 459.513 | 2.336 | 3 | 0.506 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 390.187 | 396.801 | -192.094 | 384.187 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 387.888 | 401.116 | -187.944 | 375.888 | 8.299 | 3 | 0.040 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 353.192 | 359.806 | -173.596 | 347.192 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 354.219 | 367.447 | -171.110 | 342.219 | 4.972 | 3 | 0.174 |
shs | null | 3 | 454.656 | 461.270 | -224.328 | 448.656 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 452.153 | 465.381 | -220.077 | 440.153 | 8.503 | 3 | 0.037 |
esteem | null | 3 | 224.570 | 231.184 | -109.285 | 218.570 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 225.290 | 238.518 | -106.645 | 213.290 | 5.281 | 3 | 0.152 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 348.403 | 355.018 | -171.202 | 342.403 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 353.374 | 366.602 | -170.687 | 341.374 | 1.030 | 3 | 0.794 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 363.953 | 370.567 | -178.977 | 357.953 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 366.731 | 379.959 | -177.365 | 354.731 | 3.223 | 3 | 0.359 |
mlq | null | 3 | 437.766 | 444.380 | -215.883 | 431.766 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 441.670 | 454.899 | -214.835 | 429.670 | 2.096 | 3 | 0.553 |
empower | null | 3 | 355.669 | 362.283 | -174.835 | 349.669 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 359.700 | 372.928 | -173.850 | 347.700 | 1.969 | 3 | 0.579 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 316.908 | 323.522 | -155.454 | 310.908 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 321.625 | 334.853 | -154.813 | 309.625 | 1.283 | 3 | 0.733 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 337.385 | 343.999 | -165.692 | 331.385 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 336.771 | 349.999 | -162.386 | 324.771 | 6.613 | 3 | 0.085 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 348.212 | 354.826 | -171.106 | 342.212 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 352.353 | 365.581 | -170.176 | 340.353 | 1.859 | 3 | 0.602 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 360.212 | 366.826 | -177.106 | 354.212 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 361.057 | 374.285 | -174.529 | 349.057 | 5.155 | 3 | 0.161 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 359.308 | 365.922 | -176.654 | 353.308 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 363.812 | 377.040 | -175.906 | 351.812 | 1.496 | 3 | 0.683 |
sss | null | 3 | 483.789 | 490.403 | -238.895 | 477.789 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 488.721 | 501.949 | -238.360 | 476.721 | 1.068 | 3 | 0.785 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 24 | 3.25 ± 1.20 | 24 | 3.42 ± 1.20 | 0.633 | -0.175 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 9 | 4.04 ± 1.18 | -0.828 | 10 | 3.82 ± 1.18 | -0.420 | 0.684 | 0.233 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 24 | 18.33 ± 2.76 | 24 | 18.17 ± 2.76 | 0.835 | 0.098 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 9 | 18.86 ± 2.45 | -0.310 | 10 | 18.67 ± 2.47 | -0.296 | 0.866 | 0.112 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 24 | 30.25 ± 4.98 | 24 | 31.12 ± 4.98 | 0.545 | -0.303 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 9 | 32.02 ± 4.29 | -0.614 | 10 | 30.99 ± 4.34 | 0.048 | 0.603 | 0.360 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 24 | 12.33 ± 1.95 | 24 | 12.25 ± 1.95 | 0.883 | 0.076 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 9 | 11.73 ± 1.67 | 0.544 | 10 | 12.56 ± 1.69 | -0.279 | 0.288 | -0.747 |
ras_goal | 1st | 24 | 17.58 ± 3.12 | 24 | 17.75 ± 3.12 | 0.854 | -0.090 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 9 | 17.17 ± 2.72 | 0.224 | 10 | 18.14 ± 2.75 | -0.213 | 0.440 | -0.526 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 24 | 13.38 ± 2.94 | 24 | 13.58 ± 2.94 | 0.807 | -0.180 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 9 | 13.32 ± 2.20 | 0.050 | 10 | 15.03 ± 2.26 | -1.252 | 0.098 | -1.482 |
ras_domination | 1st | 24 | 10.87 ± 2.25 | 24 | 9.46 ± 2.25 | 0.033 | 0.788 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 9 | 10.37 ± 2.22 | 0.282 | 10 | 10.70 ± 2.22 | -0.693 | 0.743 | -0.187 |
symptom | 1st | 24 | 28.50 ± 10.03 | 24 | 30.67 ± 10.03 | 0.458 | -0.645 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 9 | 27.32 ± 7.16 | 0.351 | 10 | 27.91 ± 7.39 | 0.822 | 0.861 | -0.174 |
slof_work | 1st | 24 | 23.12 ± 4.90 | 24 | 22.25 ± 4.90 | 0.539 | 0.415 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 9 | 22.64 ± 3.77 | 0.228 | 10 | 21.50 ± 3.86 | 0.356 | 0.516 | 0.543 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 24 | 26.25 ± 5.92 | 24 | 25.62 ± 5.92 | 0.716 | 0.251 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 9 | 24.94 ± 4.52 | 0.525 | 10 | 25.61 ± 4.63 | 0.006 | 0.751 | -0.268 |
satisfaction | 1st | 24 | 19.54 ± 6.89 | 24 | 22.00 ± 6.89 | 0.222 | -0.593 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 9 | 22.90 ± 6.04 | -0.809 | 10 | 22.54 ± 6.10 | -0.131 | 0.899 | 0.085 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 24 | 11.13 ± 3.62 | 24 | 11.75 ± 3.62 | 0.552 | -0.349 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 9 | 12.29 ± 2.93 | -0.650 | 10 | 11.26 ± 2.98 | 0.275 | 0.451 | 0.575 |
mhc_social | 1st | 24 | 15.21 ± 5.44 | 24 | 14.46 ± 5.44 | 0.635 | 0.249 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 9 | 16.88 ± 4.60 | -0.554 | 10 | 15.13 ± 4.66 | -0.221 | 0.413 | 0.582 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 24 | 21.67 ± 6.55 | 24 | 22.62 ± 6.55 | 0.614 | -0.272 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 9 | 23.66 ± 5.48 | -0.564 | 10 | 21.65 ± 5.56 | 0.277 | 0.431 | 0.569 |
resilisnce | 1st | 24 | 16.58 ± 4.56 | 24 | 17.08 ± 4.56 | 0.706 | -0.200 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 9 | 17.33 ± 3.84 | -0.299 | 10 | 18.29 ± 3.90 | -0.482 | 0.592 | -0.383 |
social_provision | 1st | 24 | 13.58 ± 3.10 | 24 | 13.75 ± 3.10 | 0.853 | -0.107 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 9 | 13.10 ± 2.52 | 0.308 | 10 | 14.84 ± 2.56 | -0.699 | 0.143 | -1.114 |
els_value_living | 1st | 24 | 16.67 ± 2.96 | 24 | 17.42 ± 2.96 | 0.384 | -0.485 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 9 | 17.77 ± 2.44 | -0.713 | 10 | 18.11 ± 2.48 | -0.450 | 0.762 | -0.223 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 24 | 12.21 ± 3.16 | 24 | 13.87 ± 3.16 | 0.073 | -1.017 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 9 | 14.03 ± 2.60 | -1.110 | 10 | 14.56 ± 2.64 | -0.419 | 0.659 | -0.326 |
els | 1st | 24 | 28.88 ± 5.57 | 24 | 31.29 ± 5.57 | 0.139 | -0.884 | ||
els | 2nd | 9 | 31.75 ± 4.49 | -1.053 | 10 | 32.67 ± 4.57 | -0.503 | 0.663 | -0.333 |
social_connect | 1st | 24 | 26.96 ± 9.55 | 24 | 27.17 ± 9.55 | 0.940 | -0.064 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 9 | 28.18 ± 6.85 | -0.374 | 10 | 28.97 ± 7.06 | -0.554 | 0.805 | -0.243 |
shs_agency | 1st | 24 | 13.46 ± 4.75 | 24 | 14.62 ± 4.75 | 0.399 | -0.542 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 9 | 15.00 ± 3.72 | -0.714 | 10 | 16.74 ± 3.80 | -0.982 | 0.317 | -0.809 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 24 | 15.96 ± 3.71 | 24 | 17.04 ± 3.71 | 0.317 | -0.656 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 9 | 17.03 ± 2.89 | -0.649 | 10 | 17.99 ± 2.95 | -0.575 | 0.476 | -0.582 |
shs | 1st | 24 | 29.42 ± 7.87 | 24 | 31.67 ± 7.87 | 0.327 | -0.695 | ||
shs | 2nd | 9 | 31.93 ± 5.96 | -0.776 | 10 | 34.71 ± 6.11 | -0.940 | 0.320 | -0.859 |
esteem | 1st | 24 | 12.58 ± 1.23 | 24 | 12.42 ± 1.23 | 0.640 | 0.145 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 9 | 13.42 ± 1.27 | -0.727 | 10 | 12.95 ± 1.26 | -0.464 | 0.422 | 0.408 |
mlq_search | 1st | 24 | 15.00 ± 3.29 | 24 | 15.17 ± 3.29 | 0.861 | -0.068 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 9 | 16.03 ± 3.15 | -0.423 | 10 | 15.17 ± 3.16 | -0.003 | 0.556 | 0.352 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 24 | 13.92 ± 3.79 | 24 | 13.33 ± 3.79 | 0.596 | 0.256 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 9 | 15.23 ± 3.32 | -0.575 | 10 | 14.33 ± 3.36 | -0.437 | 0.561 | 0.393 |
mlq | 1st | 24 | 28.92 ± 6.53 | 24 | 28.50 ± 6.53 | 0.826 | 0.098 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 9 | 31.23 ± 5.91 | -0.545 | 10 | 29.48 ± 5.95 | -0.232 | 0.524 | 0.412 |
empower | 1st | 24 | 19.75 ± 4.24 | 24 | 20.00 ± 4.24 | 0.839 | -0.188 | ||
empower | 2nd | 9 | 20.45 ± 2.98 | -0.526 | 10 | 20.43 ± 3.08 | -0.323 | 0.988 | 0.015 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 24 | 14.92 ± 2.61 | 24 | 14.75 ± 2.61 | 0.826 | 0.089 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 9 | 15.69 ± 2.47 | -0.410 | 10 | 15.08 ± 2.48 | -0.177 | 0.597 | 0.322 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 24 | 11.96 ± 3.11 | 24 | 10.38 ± 3.11 | 0.084 | 0.942 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 9 | 10.36 ± 2.60 | 0.949 | 10 | 10.77 ± 2.64 | -0.235 | 0.737 | -0.242 |
sss_affective | 1st | 24 | 10.04 ± 4.05 | 24 | 9.21 ± 4.05 | 0.480 | 0.679 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 9 | 9.47 ± 2.82 | 0.464 | 10 | 8.92 ± 2.92 | 0.238 | 0.675 | 0.453 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 24 | 9.96 ± 4.13 | 24 | 8.92 ± 4.13 | 0.386 | 0.701 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 9 | 8.45 ± 3.00 | 1.015 | 10 | 8.88 ± 3.09 | 0.028 | 0.763 | -0.286 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 24 | 7.79 ± 4.11 | 24 | 8.17 ± 4.11 | 0.753 | -0.231 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 9 | 8.60 ± 3.08 | -0.497 | 10 | 7.83 ± 3.16 | 0.210 | 0.591 | 0.476 |
sss | 1st | 24 | 27.79 ± 11.37 | 24 | 26.29 ± 11.37 | 0.650 | 0.459 | ||
sss | 2nd | 9 | 26.60 ± 7.84 | 0.366 | 10 | 25.66 ± 8.12 | 0.193 | 0.799 | 0.287 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(58.92) = 0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.86)
2st
t(58.03) = -0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.86)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(53.65) = -0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.43)
2st
t(56.57) = -0.17, p = 0.866, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.45 to 2.07)
ras_confidence
1st
t(52.61) = 0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.76)
2st
t(57.27) = -0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-5.01 to 2.93)
ras_willingness
1st
t(52.24) = -0.15, p = 0.883, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.05)
2st
t(57.61) = 1.07, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.37)
ras_goal
1st
t(52.99) = 0.19, p = 0.854, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.97)
2st
t(56.97) = 0.78, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.54 to 3.49)
ras_reliance
1st
t(48.83) = 0.25, p = 0.807, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.92)
2st
t(62.70) = 1.68, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -1.48, 95% CI (-0.33 to 3.76)
ras_domination
1st
t(59.06) = -2.18, p = 0.033, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-2.72 to -0.12)
2st
t(58.16) = 0.33, p = 0.743, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.38)
symptom
1st
t(48.01) = 0.75, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-3.65 to 7.99)
2st
t(62.84) = 0.18, p = 0.861, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-6.09 to 7.26)
slof_work
1st
t(49.42) = -0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.97)
2st
t(61.86) = -0.65, p = 0.516, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.65 to 2.36)
slof_relationship
1st
t(49.28) = -0.37, p = 0.716, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-4.06 to 2.81)
2st
t(62.10) = 0.32, p = 0.751, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-3.53 to 4.87)
satisfaction
1st
t(53.17) = 1.24, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.53 to 6.45)
2st
t(56.84) = -0.13, p = 0.899, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-5.93 to 5.23)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(50.64) = 0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.72)
2st
t(59.77) = -0.76, p = 0.451, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-3.74 to 1.68)
mhc_social
1st
t(51.98) = -0.48, p = 0.635, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.90 to 2.40)
2st
t(57.90) = -0.82, p = 0.413, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-6.01 to 2.50)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(51.61) = 0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.84 to 4.75)
2st
t(58.34) = -0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-7.08 to 3.06)
resilisnce
1st
t(51.82) = 0.38, p = 0.706, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.14 to 3.14)
2st
t(58.08) = 0.54, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-2.60 to 4.52)
social_provision
1st
t(50.80) = 0.19, p = 0.853, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.96)
2st
t(59.51) = 1.48, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -1.11, 95% CI (-0.60 to 4.07)
els_value_living
1st
t(51.25) = 0.88, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.96 to 2.46)
2st
t(58.84) = 0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.92 to 2.61)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(51.17) = 1.83, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (-0.16 to 3.50)
2st
t(58.95) = 0.44, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.94)
els
1st
t(50.57) = 1.50, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.81 to 5.65)
2st
t(59.90) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-3.25 to 5.08)
social_connect
1st
t(48.09) = 0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-5.33 to 5.75)
2st
t(62.91) = 0.25, p = 0.805, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-5.59 to 7.18)
shs_agency
1st
t(49.84) = 0.85, p = 0.399, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.92)
2st
t(61.15) = 1.01, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-1.71 to 5.20)
shs_pathway
1st
t(49.69) = 1.01, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.07 to 3.24)
2st
t(61.41) = 0.72, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.64)
shs
1st
t(49.11) = 0.99, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-2.32 to 6.82)
2st
t(62.35) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-2.76 to 8.32)
esteem
1st
t(62.50) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.54)
2st
t(62.25) = -0.81, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.63 to 0.69)
mlq_search
1st
t(57.28) = 0.18, p = 0.861, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.07)
2st
t(56.87) = -0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-3.76 to 2.05)
mlq_presence
1st
t(53.17) = -0.53, p = 0.596, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.78 to 1.61)
2st
t(56.85) = -0.58, p = 0.561, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-3.97 to 2.18)
mlq
1st
t(54.44) = -0.22, p = 0.826, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-4.20 to 3.36)
2st
t(56.31) = -0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-7.20 to 3.71)
empower
1st
t(47.76) = 0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.21 to 2.71)
2st
t(62.42) = -0.01, p = 0.988, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.80 to 2.76)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(56.60) = -0.22, p = 0.826, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.34)
2st
t(56.55) = -0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.88 to 1.67)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(51.66) = -1.76, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-3.38 to 0.22)
2st
t(58.28) = 0.34, p = 0.737, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.00 to 2.82)
sss_affective
1st
t(47.63) = -0.71, p = 0.480, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-3.19 to 1.52)
2st
t(62.07) = -0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-3.19 to 2.08)
sss_behavior
1st
t(48.34) = -0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-3.44 to 1.35)
2st
t(63.00) = 0.30, p = 0.763, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-2.37 to 3.22)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(48.86) = 0.32, p = 0.753, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.01 to 2.76)
2st
t(62.67) = -0.54, p = 0.591, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-3.63 to 2.09)
sss
1st
t(47.46) = -0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-8.10 to 5.10)
2st
t(61.47) = -0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-8.26 to 6.39)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(27.47) = 1.02, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.21)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(22.20) = 0.69, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.01 to 2.02)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(21.37) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.72 to 2.44)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(21.10) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.30)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(21.67) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.05)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(18.73) = 2.85, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (0.38 to 2.52)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(27.65) = 1.68, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.77)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(18.21) = -1.86, p = 0.159, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-5.88 to 0.36)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(19.12) = -0.81, p = 0.854, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.69 to 1.18)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(19.02) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-2.31 to 2.28)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(21.81) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-3.15 to 4.24)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(19.94) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.13)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(20.90) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-2.04 to 3.38)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(20.63) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-4.16 to 2.21)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(20.78) = 1.11, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.05 to 3.46)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(20.05) = 1.61, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.50)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(20.37) = 1.04, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.09)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(20.31) = 0.97, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.80 to 2.17)
els
1st vs 2st
t(19.89) = 1.15, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.11 to 3.86)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(18.26) = 1.25, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.22 to 4.82)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(19.40) = 2.24, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.14 to 4.09)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(19.29) = 1.31, p = 0.409, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.46)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(18.91) = 2.14, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (0.06 to 6.02)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(34.51) = 1.17, p = 0.497, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.46)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(25.55) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.09 to 2.11)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(21.81) = 1.02, p = 0.640, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.03)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(22.85) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.75 to 4.71)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(18.06) = 0.73, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.67)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(24.85) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.96)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(20.67) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.91)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(17.98) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.85)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(18.42) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.33)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(18.75) = -0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.84 to 1.16)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(17.87) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.68 to 2.42)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(28.47) = 1.91, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.63)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(22.64) = 0.69, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.12)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(21.74) = 1.36, p = 0.378, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.94 to 4.49)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(21.44) = -1.20, p = 0.488, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.44)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(22.06) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.15 to 1.32)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(18.86) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.06)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(28.68) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.10 to 1.08)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(18.31) = -0.75, p = 0.921, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-4.46 to 2.10)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(19.28) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.52 to 1.55)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(19.18) = -1.14, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.10)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(22.22) = 1.79, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.52 to 7.24)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(20.18) = 1.42, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.87)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(21.22) = 1.22, p = 0.472, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.18 to 4.52)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(20.93) = 1.24, p = 0.460, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.36 to 5.33)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(21.09) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.11)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(20.30) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.01)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(20.64) = 1.56, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.57)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(20.58) = 2.43, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -1.11, 95% CI (0.26 to 3.38)
els
1st vs 2st
t(20.12) = 2.30, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.27 to 5.49)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(18.36) = 0.80, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.96 to 4.40)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(19.58) = 1.55, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.53 to 3.61)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(19.47) = 1.41, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.66)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(19.06) = 1.68, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.62 to 5.64)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(36.32) = 1.76, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.80)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(26.34) = 0.96, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.17 to 3.24)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(22.21) = 1.27, p = 0.432, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.82 to 3.45)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(23.36) = 1.22, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.61 to 6.23)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(18.14) = 1.13, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.01)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(25.57) = 0.93, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.48)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(20.97) = -2.08, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-3.19 to -0.00)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(18.05) = -0.99, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.63)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(18.53) = -2.18, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 1.01, 95% CI (-2.95 to -0.06)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(18.88) = 1.07, p = 0.594, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.38)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(17.94) = -0.78, p = 0.888, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-4.40 to 2.01)
Plot
